LET THEM SPEAK
Student government is an odd bird. Those who participate are asked to take on the job of running a multi-million dollar entity, with little to none by way of compensation. Add in the fact that nearly everyone involved is between the ages of 18 and 23, there are bound to be some hiccups.
Mistakes are going to happen. That’s to be expected. But like any well-run institution, those mistakes should be used as an opportunity to reflect, reevaluate, and learn, so those mistakes aren’t repeated. That learning process won’t happen automatically, however. And the first, and most important step in that process is recognizing that a mistake has been made at all.
Now I know human beings are often reluctant to admit mistakes. We don’t want to experience the shame and embarrassment of having other people know that we failed to live up to expectations. That is why we have oversight.
In the case of the University of Ottawa Student Union (UOSU), that oversight is (or should be) provided by the Board of Directors (BoD). However, certain clauses in the newly proposed Code of Conduct would significantly impede this vital function. More specifically, sections 2.4.1, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3.
2.4.1. Despite maybe not voting in favour of all decisions, Directors and Executives must show public solidarity for all Board decisions, with respect to the democratic process in which they were made. Directors and Executives shall support, in an affirmative manner, all actions taken by the Board.
Proposed Board of Director’s Code of Conduct – University of Ottawa Student’s Union
Section 2.4.1 would compel directors to publicly support all decisions taken by the BoD, regardless of whether or not they agree with it, or even voted for it. How can we have accountability if there is no room for public dissent?
2.6.1. Directors shall not, in the context of the Corporation’s business and practices, make comments to the media or make themselves available for interviews by the media on behalf of the UOSU.
2.6.2. All public statements to be made on behalf of UOSU are adhere to article 5.3.7 of the Constitution.
2.6.3. Any public comments made by a Director in their personal capacity cannot violate their fiduciary duties to the UOSU and must clearly state that such comments are made by them in their personal capacity and not in their capacity as Directors or representatives of the UOSU
Proposed Board of Director’s Code of Conduct – University of Ottawa Student’s Union
Sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.3 deal with media relations, and to varying degrees, limit, or even prohibit, directors from speaking to any media about UOSU matters. If the President of UOSU is the only individual at liberty to speak with the media, how can they and the rest of the executive be meaningfully held to account for their actions by the media?
Now some might say that it is not the BoD’s responsibility to act in such a political manner, and I believe the proposal of these sections of the Code of Conduct is an extension of that point of view. To them, I say that the BoD is already prohibited from involving themselves in any matters related to corporate governance, as such decisions are constitutionally reserved for the executive.
If the BoD cannot act like a BoD of a publicly traded company might, regarding corporate oversight, and it cannot speak critically about any other aspect of UOSU activities, why bother having a BoD at all? Surely it would save everyone lots of time and energy to just recruit a volunteer cheer squad instead?
Others have stated that directors have a fiduciary duty to UOSU and that any criticism can be interpreted as something that harms the union, therefore violating said duty. But it is important to ask to whom the directors owe that fiduciary duty.
I would argue that it is not to the multi-million dollar corporate entity, but rather to the fee-paying members of the student union, who elected them, and deserve to hear (from their elected representatives or from the media) about what is happening at UOSU, what mistakes have been made, and what, if any, efforts have been made to prevent those issues from repeating themselves.
All of this is to say that if we want a BoD that can meaningfully act as a democratically elected oversight body, these new rules cannot be passed. I urge my former colleagues to vote to amend this Code of Conduct, allowing UOSU to move on to the many other important matters that demand its attention.
